| Literature DB >> 35327314 |
Jing Xie1, Jianhua Huang1, Guangxi Ren2, Jian Jin1, Lin Chen1, Can Zhong1, Yuan Cai1, Hao Liu1, Rongrong Zhou1, Yuhui Qin1, Shuihan Zhang1.
Abstract
Poria cocos (PC) is an important fungus with high medicinal and nutritional values. However, the quality of PC is heavily dependent on multiple factors in the cultivation regions. Traditional methods are not able to perform quality evaluation for this fungus in a short time, and a new method is needed for rapid quality assessment. Here, we used near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy combined with chemometric method to identify the cultivation regions and determine PC chemical compositions. In our study, 138 batches of samples were collected and their cultivation regions were distinguished by combining NIR spectroscopy and random forest method (RFM) with an accuracy as high as 92.59%. In the meantime, we used partial least square regression (PLSR) to build quantitative models and measure the content of water-soluble extract (WSE), ethanol-soluble extract (ASE), polysaccharides (PSC) and the sum of five triterpenoids (SFT). The performance of these models were verified with correlation coefficients (R2cal and R2pre) above 0.9 for the four quality parameters and the relative errors (RE) of PSC, WSE, ASE and SFT at 4.055%, 3.821%, 4.344% and 3.744%, respectively. Overall, a new approach was developed and validated which is able to distinguish PC production regions, quantify its chemical contents, and effectively evaluate PC quality.Entities:
Keywords: NIR spectroscopy; Poria cocos; chemical compositions; chemometric methods; cultivation regions
Year: 2022 PMID: 35327314 PMCID: PMC8956048 DOI: 10.3390/foods11060892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Linear regression of the five triterpene acids.
| Compounds | Range (μg mL−1) | Regression Equation a |
| LOD b (μg mL−1) | LOQ c (μg mL−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DTUA | 0.81~40.60 | 0.996 | 0.209 | 0.696 | |
| PAA | 0.40~20.00 | 0.998 | 0.186 | 0.619 | |
| PAC | 0.41~20.40 | 0.999 | 0.166 | 0.554 | |
| DPA | 0.79~39.60 | 0.998 | 0.236 | 0.788 | |
| DTRA | 1.21~60.40 | 0.994 | 0.157 | 0.525 |
a, x—concentration of the analyte (mg mL−1), y—peak value; b, LOD—limit of detection; c, LOQ—limit of quantification.
Active contents of PC samples.
| Regions | Yunan Region | Xiangqian Region | Dabie Mountains Region | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Samples | 58 | 28 | 52 | |
| PSC (mg g−1) | Min | 1.24 | 1.20 | 1.40 |
| Max | 31.16 | 22.66 | 8.96 | |
| Mean | 6.81 | 5.67 | 4.59 | |
| SD | 5.62 | 4.59 | 1.89 | |
| WSE (mg g−1) | Min | 8.80 | 15.52 | 5.68 |
| Max | 73.95 | 73.76 | 57.58 | |
| Mean | 25.22 | 23.95 | 19.57 | |
| SD | 12.81 | 12.18 | 7.40 | |
| ASE (mg g−1) | Min | 16.29 | 24.20 | 17.01 |
| Max | 90.00 | 53.88 | 48.70 | |
| Mean | 37.85 | 33.60 | 31.24 | |
| SD | 14.31 | 7.53 | 5.83 | |
| DTUA (mg g−1) | Min | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| Max | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.50 | |
| Mean | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.24 | |
| SD | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.10 | |
| PAA (mg g−1) | Min | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Max | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.34 | |
| Mean | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.05 | |
| SD | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | |
| PAC (mg g−1) | Min | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.09 |
| Max | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.36 | |
| Mean | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.14 | |
| SD | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | |
| DPA (mg g−1) | Min | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.15 |
| Max | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.33 | |
| Mean | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.21 | |
| SD | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | |
| DTRA (mg g−1) | Min | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.07 |
| Max | 4.65 | 4.04 | 2.12 | |
| Mean | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.50 | |
| SD | 0.89 | 0.73 | 0.41 | |
| SFT (mg g−1) | Min | 0.51 | 0.64 | 0.52 |
| Max | 5.68 | 4.82 | 2.77 | |
| Mean | 1.26 | 1.36 | 1.13 | |
| SD | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.47 | |
PSC—polysaccharides; WSE—water-soluble extract; ASE—alcohol-soluble extract; DTUA—Dehydrotumulosic acid; PAA—poricoic acid A; PAC—polyporenic acid C; DPA—dehydropachymic acid; DTRA—Dehydrotrametenolic acid; SFT—sum of the five triterpenoids; SD—standard deviation.
Figure 1Box and whisker plot of polysaccharides (PSC, A), water-soluble extract (WSE, B), alcohol-soluble extract (ASE, C), triterpene acids DTUA (D), PAA (E), PAC (F), DPA (G), DTRA (H) and sum of five triterpenoids (SFT, I) in cultivation regions of PC. Data are mean values ± SD (significant differences between the letters). The boxes are bounded by the 25% and 75% quartiles, with the median inside, whereas the extreme levels correspond to 5% and 95% percentiles, the rhombuses and stars represent the atypical values.
Figure 2NIR spectra of the 138 PC samples without pretreatments.
Figure 3Outlier identification by using Monte Carlo cross-validation method.
Figure 4The NIR-based classification plot of PC for three main producing regions.
Comparison between reference values and the values determined by NIR spectroscopy and RFM in validation samples.
| Sample | Reference Values | NIR Values | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| S16 | YN a | YN | Correct |
| S19 | YN | YN | Correct |
| S22 | YN | YN | Correct |
| S25 | YN | YN | Correct |
| S35 | YN | YN | Correct |
| S50 | YN | YN | Correct |
| S57 | DBM b | DBM | Correct |
| S64 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S65 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S67 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S68 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S69 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S73 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S76 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S80 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S83 | XQ c | XQ | Correct |
| S88 | XQ | XQ | Correct |
| S92 | XQ | DBM | False |
| S93 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S101 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S102 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S109 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S112 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S121 | YN | YN | Correct |
| S128 | DBM | DBM | Correct |
| S133 | YN | YN | Correct |
| S136 | XQ | DBM | False |
a, YN—Yunnan region; b, DBM—Dabie Mountains region; c, XQ—Xiangqian region.
Range of values obtained by the reference methods for PC samples in the calibration and validation sample groups.
| Indexes | Calibration | Validation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Range | Mean | SD | N | Range | Mean | SD | |
| PSC | 108 | 1.20–31.16 | 5.89 | 4.84 | 27 | 1.95–8.90 | 4.97 | 2.02 |
| WSE | 108 | 5.68–73.95 | 23.31 | 11.08 | 27 | 10.40–25.69 | 18.28 | 3.10 |
| ASE | 108 | 16.29–90.00 | 35.27 | 11.73 | 27 | 25.29–42.38 | 30.77 | 4.51 |
| SFT | 108 | 0.51–5.68 | 1.25 | 0.87 | 27 | 0.58–2.53 | 1.12 | 0.40 |
PSC—polysaccharide content; WSE—water-soluble extract content; ASE—alcohol-soluble extract content; SFT—sum of the five triterpenoids; SD—standard deviation.
Results obtained by using different methods for signal pretreatment.
| Indexes | Evaluations a | Raw | MSC | SNV | Smooth | Smooth + | Smooth + | SG-1D |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSC | RMSEC | 0.122 | 0.107 | 0.114 | 0.112 | 0.101 | 0.093 |
|
|
| 0.855 | 0.888 | 0.872 | 0.879 | 0.901 | 0.915 |
| |
| RMSEP | 0.179 | 0.165 | 0.188 | 0.108 | 0.138 | 0.124 |
| |
|
| 0.739 | 0.790 | 0.701 | 0.863 | 0.805 | 0.859 |
| |
| WSE | RMSEC | 2.802 | 2.924 | 2.455 | 2.343 | 3.116 | 2.489 |
|
|
| 0.824 | 0.822 | 0.864 | 0.877 | 0.782 | 0.861 |
| |
| RMSEP | 3.315 | 3.090 | 3.174 | 3.467 | 3.610 | 3.516 |
| |
|
| 0.758 | 0.808 | 0.768 | 0.725 | 0.696 | 0.710 |
| |
| ASE | RMSEC | 2.996 | 2.701 |
| 2.066 | 2.489 | 3.749 | 3.512 |
|
| 0.910 | 0.920 |
| 0.946 | 0.911 | 0.897 | 0.909 | |
| RMSEP | 2.772 | 3.763 |
| 2.968 | 4.285 | 3.894 | 3.763 | |
|
| 0.910 | 0.862 |
| 0.918 | 0.836 | 0.873 | 0.862 | |
| SFT | RMSEC | 0.298 | 0.228 |
| 0.225 | 0.225 | 0.229 | 0.197 |
|
| 0.862 | 0.919 |
| 0.921 | 0.921 | 0.919 | 0.940 | |
| RMSEP | 0.315 | 0.279 |
| 0.298 | 0.283 | 0.270 | 0.259 | |
|
| 0.846 | 0.880 |
| 0.862 | 0.876 | 0.887 | 0.896 |
PSC—polysaccharide content; WSE—water-soluble extract content; ASE—alcohol-soluble extract content; SFT—the sum content of five triterpene acids; a—the smaller the RMSEC, RMSEP value and the closer the R2cal, R2pre value to 1, the better the model.
Figure 5The relative error (RE) of polysaccharides (PSC), water-soluble extract (WSE), alcohol-soluble extract (ASE) and sum of five triterpenoids (SFT). (A) polysaccharides; (B) water-soluble extract; (C) alcohol-soluble extract; (D) sum of five triterpenoids.